The transformation of administrative towns in Roman Britain

(1)

by Lara Bishop

BA, Saint Mary‟s University, 1997 MA, University of Wales Cardiff, 2001 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department of Greek and Roman Studies

 Lara Bishop, 2011 University of Victoria

(2)

Supervisory Committee

The Transformation of Administrative Towns in Roman Britain by

Lara Bishop

BA, Saint Mary‟s University, 1997 MA, University of Wales Cardiff, 2001

Supervisory Committee

Dr. Gregory D. Rowe, (Department of Greek and Roman Studies) Supervisor

Dr. J. Geoffrey Kron, (Department of Greek and Roman Studies) Departmental Member

(3)

Abstract

Supervisory Committee

Dr. Gregory D. Rowe, (Department of Greek and Roman Studies) Supervisor

Dr. J. Geoffrey Kron, (Department of Greek and Roman Studies) Departmental Member

The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether the Roman administrative towns of Britain continued in their original Romanized form as seen in the second century AD, or were altered in their appearance and function in the fourth and fifth century, with a visible reduction in their urbanization and Romanization. It will be argued that British town life did change significantly. Major components of urbanization were disrupted with the public buildings disused or altered for other purposes, and the reduction or cessation of public services. A reduction in the population of the towns can be perceived in the eventual disuse of the extramural cemeteries and abandonment of substantial areas of settlement or possibly entire towns. The cause of this will be shown to be related to the towns‟ relationship with the imperial taxation and revenue system, and the

(4)

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the following people who helped me to complete this thesis: Evan Garland, for his patience and support, and for his assistance with the map; Gregory Rowe, for his unwavering belief that the thesis could be completed; Geoffrey Kron, for pushing me to consider possibilities beyond my original concept of the thesis; and Cedric Littlewood, for his encouragement.

(6)

Dedication

(7)

Prologue

The fate of the towns built early in the Roman occupation of Britain is an issue that has engaged historians and archaeologists over the last century. The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to that debate, and to make progress towards determining what happened to the administrative towns in particular, during the later period of Roman occupation and in the fifth century after Roman rule had come to an end. Of particular interest will be the question of whether these towns continued in their original

Romanized form as seen particularly in the Hadrianic to Antonine eras of the second century, or were altered in their appearance and function in the late Roman period, with a visible reduction in their urbanization and Romanization. Did town life carry on after the cessation of Roman occupation, in some form, up to the time of the later Anglo-Saxon habitation of the town sites, or did it soon come to an end?

I will argue and demonstrate that town life in Britain changed significantly in the late Roman period, particularly during the last years of the occupation and after it had come to an end. Major components of urbanization in the second century were

drastically altered towards the end of Roman rule, and occupation of the towns became minimal within a few decades of the cessation of Roman administration. This

transformation will be explored in the changes in form and use of the public buildings, which characterized urban life in the classical world and identified a town as an

administrative centre, in the public services and infrastructure that was a usual aspect of Romanized towns, in urban means of disposal of the dead, and particularly in the patterns and density of domestic and commercial settlement.

The changes that occurred can largely be explained in the context of Britain‟s place within the Roman Empire. It was affected by changes in the economy and administration of the empire, by the organization of it for maximal exploitation of its resources, and its integration with the imperial taxation and revenue system. The towns were likely also affected increasingly in the late period, by the ongoing trend of

resistance, rebellion, and usurpation throughout the history of Roman occupation, and particularly notable in the last century and a half. This would probably have had both economic and psychological impacts on the towns. It was the actions of the Roman state, and the British interaction with it, that led to the demise of urban life in the late Roman

(8)

and sub-Roman period, not the invasions and settlement of Britain by Germanic peoples, as has often been argued in the past.

To be able to place the changes within their historical context, the thesis will begin with a survey of the main elements of Roman Britain‟s history, with a particular emphasis on the episodes of revolt and usurpation. Problems with the interpretation of the primary literary sources will be considered, particularly for those especially difficult sources relevant to the events and conditions of the fifth century. This will be followed by a review of the main theories regarding the end of Roman Britain and the fate of its towns. There will be a brief discussion of the main types of archaeological evidence relevant to a dialogue about changes in the towns, and the main problems that may be encountered in using this evidence. An overview of the typical organization and

structural components found in Romano-British towns will then be given, followed by a review of the political, economic, and social changes in the later Roman period which impacted the towns‟ function and appearance. A detailed examination of the evidence for transformation of urban life in Britain will then proceed, with an in-depth look at changes in the main aspects of town life: public buildings, public services and infrastructure, the disposal of the dead, and domestic and commercial settlement. Lastly, there will be a very brief comparative glimpse of aspects of change in urban life on the continent.

(9)

Section One: Background: Structures and Narrative, Literary and

Archaeological Sources, and Scholarly Debate

Historical Background to Roman Britain and Its Towns

In order to understand the changes that occurred in the administrative towns of Roman Britain, it is necessary to view the historical context in which they developed and were transformed. In this section, the historical background to Roman Britain will be recounted and evaluated. Those instances where the traditional narrative has come to be challenged with alternative interpretations in recent decades, and where the literary sources are no longer viewed by at least some scholars as reliable, will be identified and examined.

Late Iron Age Britain, at the Time of Caesar’s Invasions

The different late Iron Age tribes of Britain shared common elements with each other; each also demonstrated notable differences and variety in their settlement and artefact types, cultural practices, and links (or lack of links) to the continent (de la Bédoyère 2006: 11). The tribes spoke an unwritten Celtic language and displayed a “strong cultural affinity” and similarities in “society and political behaviour” with

northern Gaul. As in northern Gaul, these were aristocratic societies marked by a warrior elite, strong tribal identity, and intertribal warfare (Salway 1990: 14). Prestige was considered essential for rulers, and for “control of land and resources” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 20). This increasing hierarchy was made possible by the greater yields produced by more efficient agricultural practices in the late Iron Age, which led to population growth and “pressure on available resources”, which resulted in more conflict and instability (ibid.).

The Invasions of Caesar

Between 58 and 51 BC, the Roman army was engaged in fighting in Gaul, with Julius Caesar as its commander. His British expeditions were an extension of these wars in Gaul, and provided a means for Caesar to retain control of an army (Breeze 1990: 24),

(10)

to increase his prestige, and to help “justify his position” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 18). The official pretext, however, was that “… Britons had intervened in the Gaulish resistance by offering military assistance” (ibid.).

The invasion of 55 BC was primarily just a small “reconnaissance”, whereas that of 54 was larger and directed towards the goal of conquest (Breeze 1990: 24). Both campaigns ended with somewhat inconclusive results. The British tribes in 54 eventually agreed to Caesar‟s terms, which included paying tribute to Rome, and the Roman army returned to Gaul to deal with a rebellion. These invasions did not lead to an occupation, and the Britons soon stopped bothering to pay the tribute (de la Bédoyère 2006: 19-20; Breeze 1990: 24).

Britain between the Invasions

Prior to the invasions, the main trade route between Britain and Gaul had crossed between the coast of Dorset in south-west England and the north-west coast of Gaul. Archaeological evidence indicates that after the invasions, not only was trade between Britain and Gaul greatly increased, but that the main route had relocated to between east and south-east England and the Rhine and Seine areas (Mattingly 2006: 68; Salway 1990: 15).

As Roman goods were becoming increasingly popular, groups with control of this trade grew in power. “Such control … made the tribes through which they flowed rich and gave their rulers political muscle in relation to other aristocracies that desired them” (Salway 1990: 15). The controlling groups in the south-east were particularly the

Catuvellauni, Trinovantes, and Atrebates. These tribes had been using and minting coins since around 80 BC, and this was becoming even more the case with the greater Roman influence via Gaul (ibid., 14; Mattingly 2006: 68). They now used the most Roman goods and had the most developed hierarchies in Britain. The goods were used by them as a means for displaying prestige and status, both within a kingdom and between kingdoms (Mattingly 2006: 82, 84).

Immediately beyond the south-east were neighbouring tribes such as the Iceni, Dobunni, and Durotriges, that now also used coins, as well as Roman goods. They were becoming more hierarchical “in emulation” of the kingdoms that had more direct contact with the Roman world (Mattingly 2006: 82). To the north, west, and far south-west –

(11)

northern England and Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Devon – things were different. The tribes in these areas did not use coins and exhibited much less hierarchy, at least in their settlement patterns. They appear to have been less impacted by the south-east‟s contact and trade with the Roman world (ibid., 83). These areas would remain less Romanized and would experience much less urban development through the period of Roman occupation.

One south-eastern tribe had become particularly powerful in the years since Caesar‟s expedition: the Catuvellauni, who were located just north of the Thames River and originally were based at Verulamium1 in Hertfordshire. Under their ruler,

Cunobelinus, they had by the late AD 30s annexed territory further east that belonged to the Trinovantes, as well as their capital of Camulodunum2. Around AD 42 Cunobelinus died and his sons took control; the confusion during this period of a changeover of power provided the Romans “with a key opportunity to invade” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 26). The Claudian Invasion and Conquest

The Catuvellauni expansion, as well as their succession dispute, resulted in a king of the Atrebates and one of Cunobelinus‟ sons each fleeing to Rome to seek assistance, providing Rome with an excuse to invade (Salway 1980: 15-16). However, a more likely reason for the invasion was that the new emperor, Claudius, needed a military victory to gain prestige with his army and the Roman people to help him to hold onto his position (Breeze 1990: 24; de la Bédoyère 2006: 24).

In the summer of AD 43, the Roman fleet landed in south-east Britain, and aimed their attack at the Catuvellauni. Cunobelinus‟ sons were soon defeated, resulting in tribes that had been subject to them going over to the Roman side. The Britons were defeated in additional battles in the area of the Thames and Medway rivers; one of Cunobelinus‟ sons was killed in the fighting inside Catuvellauni territory (de la Bédoyère 2006: 28-29). The advance of the Roman army was then stopped until the autumn arrival of Claudius to oversee the army‟s entry into the current Catuvellauni capital of Camulodunum. Here the Romans would establish their first major military base in Britain from which they would send out the army to continue the conquest (ibid., 30).

1_{St Albans}

2

(12)

Once the south-east had been secured, Roman forces moved outward, the future emperor Vespasian taking troops into south-west Britain towards what would become Exeter. Other forces moved north as far as Lincoln, and west towards the Welsh borders, the road networks of Roman Britain developing outward from a geographically

convenient location (that later became London) as the army progressed. “By 47, much of southern Britain had technically capitulated” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 31-32).

Consolidation of the Conquest

The conquered area of Britain was swiftly set up as Britannia, a province of the Roman Empire. It would be overseen by the governor, a man who would have been a Roman senator and have previously served as a consul of Rome. He was both head of provincial administration and commander of the province‟s army, as well as concerned with the giving out of justice (Salway 1990: 16).

The establishment of administrative units also soon followed the conquest of the south-east. Self-administrating and self-financing urban centres with accompanying attached territory were set up at the conquered capitals of the Catuvellauni: a colonia at Colchester and a municipium at Verulamium. An urban centre also quickly developed at London, which had not previously been a native capital or population centre, but was conveniently located on the Thames at the centre of the new Roman road network. It soon became some sort of administrative centre, and, later in the first century, the provincial capital, but it is not known whether it had the status of a colonia or

municipium. Tribal territories were also set up as self-administering and self-financing

units, civitates; these would be run from an urban administrative capital that would be established (Higham 1992: 24; Salway 1990: 16). Each of these administrative units was “a local oligarchy run by local men of property” (Salway 1990: 16). In the civitas

capitals, these men were probably drawn from the aristocracy of the tribes and would develop into the class of councillors and magistrates that would administer the towns during Roman rule (Higham 1992: 24).

The Roman taxation system was also quickly set up in Britain, so that the province might pay for and supply the army that was occupying it. “Under the early Empire, taxes consisted of three elements: tax on the capital value of land (tributum soli),

(13)

a poll-tax (tributum capitis), and various indirect taxes” (Higham 1992: 28). All but the latter were collected by the town magistrates (ibid.).

At this time, taxes were paid in coin, while food which the army required, particularly grain, was requisitioned. Farmers had to exchange their produce for coin to pay taxes. “The tax system provided … an important stimulus for interaction between the peasants, who grew and sold their produce, the urban markets which enabled them to exchange their produce for cash, and the social elite who distributed the burden and had it collected on behalf of the state” (Higham 1992: 28).

The First-Century Revolts

The Romans were faced by ongoing native resistance for much of the first

century, as well as outbreaks of revolt, such as that of the Iceni tribe in East Anglia in 47 when the tribesmen‟s right to bear arms was taken away (Tacitus, Annals 12.31; Salway 1990: 16). Resistance in Wales was being organized by Caratacus, the surviving son of Cunobelinus. The provincial governor Ostorius defeated Caratacus and his allies in battle in Wales, but the Welsh tribes continued “a concerted guerrilla campaign” (de la

Bédoyère 2006: 33-34; Tacitus, Annals 12.32-39). The next governor, Paullinus, decided to deal a major blow to these tribes by wiping out their druids‟ stronghold on the island of Anglesey (de la Bédoyère 2006: 36; Tacitus, Annals 14.29-30).

But while Paullinus was occupied in Wales, the Iceni revolted again, AD 60-61 (Tacitus, Annals 14.31-37). The Romans had put an end to the client-kingdom status of the Iceni on the death of their king Prasutagus in 59, and in the process caused insult, offence, and injury to his widow Boudicca and their daughters, as well as to other leading members of the kingdom (de la Bédoyère 2006: 36; Salway 1990: 18). More tribal elites joined the cause. Some had been put in the position of having the Roman government demand the repayment of donations from Claudius as well as loans from speculators, which had probably been to help them with paying taxes as well as acquiring the material goods needed for civilized Roman life. “There was, presumably, no chance of any of the Britons being in a position to repay their debts” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 36). Members of the Trinovantes tribe also joined the revolt, in their resentment at having been forced out of their lands which were appropriated as land grants for colonists (ibid., 37; Salway 1990: 18). The British forces, led by Boudicca, attacked and burned the new Roman

(14)

towns at Colchester, London, and Verulamium. Eventually, when Paullinus was able to return from Wales, his army faced the British tribes in battle in the English midlands and defeated them (de la Bédoyère 2006: 39).

The Expansion of the Province

Problems with the Brigantes tribe in northern England in the late 60s and early 70s led to fighting and fort-building in the north for the Roman army, and to an advance up to York, where a legionary fortress was established. Campaigns in Wales ended much of the resistance there in the mid-70s. It was likely around this time that a legionary fortress was built in south-east Wales at Caerleon, and one in western England near the north-east Welsh border at Chester, to keep control over these areas (de la Bédoyère 2006: 41-42).

In AD 77/78 Agricola became governor in Britain. After campaigns in Wales and northern England, he would take the army into first lowland Scotland, and finally into north-east Scotland, ending the campaigning with a Roman victory in 83 or 84 over the Caledonian tribe at Mons Graupius (Breeze 1990: 26). Then Agricola was recalled by the emperor Domitian, and many of the forts were dismantled by the Roman army, such as the legionary fortress at Inchtuthil (de la Bédoyère 2006: 44). “Trouble on [the] Danube frontier prevented [a] follow-up to Agricola‟s victory” (Breeze 1990: 26). Though the Romans pulled out of northern Scotland, they initially tried to make southern Scotland part of the province (de la Bédoyère 2006: 44).

Roman Britain and Urban Development of the Province

“A variety of incentives and pressures gradually transformed the upper classes of [south-eastern] Britain into solid Roman gentry” (Salway 1990: 18). After the rebellion of Boudicca, a focus for the Roman government on better provincial administration helped to convince the British elites “that they might enjoy those material pleasures of Roman life which they had coveted before the conquest without very serious deprivation other than the freedom to fight one another” (ibid.). The absorption of the aristocracy was aided by the immigration to Britain of people from throughout the empire, providing the new towns with Romanized merchants and traders, artisans, and workers. An

emphasis on local recruitment to the Roman army also played an important role in integrating Britons into the Roman system, with the intention of “producing Roman

(15)

citizens who [would] subsequently [take] their place in the local community” (ibid.). The large-scale trade of Roman material goods, even to more remote rural regions, likely also contributed to change on a level beyond that of the top elites (de la Bédoyère 2006: 46).

The promotion of urban life was an essential part of the attempt to integrate the new province into the Roman Empire through the adoption of Roman civilization. Urban life was also central to the Roman practice of encouraging local self-administration through the towns, as this saved the imperial government the cost and hassle of having to directly administer these territories. The coloniae, which provided models for urban life and Romanization, were “imposed from above” and build “on territoria commandeered by the state” for retiring Roman soldiers (Higham 1992: 29). The transformation of the tribes of the south-east into civitates which governed themselves from their own urban administrative centres gained momentum in the time of the Flavian emperors, the later first century (ibid.). Agricola may have played a major role in the promotion of this, and particularly of the urban development of these new centres during his time as governor (de la Bédoyère 2006: 46).

The Frontier of Roman Britain in the Second Century

The Roman army began to pull out of southern Scotland very early in the second century, probably ca. 105. The need to remove troops to the continent for Trajan‟s Dacian invasion may well have been behind this (Breeze 1990: 28; de la Bédoyère 2006: 47). The new frontier became the Tyne-Solway line in northern England. This is where Hadrian‟s Wall would be built, likely due to his visit to Britain in 122 (Breeze 1990: 28-29; de la Bédoyère 2006: 50). The wall provided a dividing line between what was Roman and what was barbarian; its purpose was “to control movement across [the] frontier and prevent raids” Breeze 1990: 28; de la Bédoyère 2006: 52).

But after Antoninus Pius became emperor in 138, the Romans looked to southern Scotland again. This was occupied once more, and ca. 139-143 another wall was built to make the new frontier the Forth-Clyde line (de la Bédoyère 2006: 56; Breeze 1990: 28). However, within a few years of Marcus Aurelius becoming emperor, the Antonine Wall was abandoned, around 163, and Hadrian‟s Wall re-established as the frontier. The

(16)

latter‟s construction was finally completed in the later second century (de la Bédoyère 2006: 57-58; Breeze 1990: 26).

Britain‟s northern frontier continued to be a concern for the Romans. Ca. 180, around the time when Commodus became the emperor, there was warfare again.

Apparently tribes had gone over the wall into Roman Britain, supposedly creating a great deal of destruction and significant losses of troops. The governor Ulpius Marcellus was finally able to have a victory over them in 184 (de la Bédoyère 2006: 60).

Septimius Severus and Roman Britain

Not long after the death of Commodus, three separate nominees were proclaimed emperor by their legions, in different parts of the empire: in the west, Clodius Albinus, governor of Britain; on the Danube river, Septimius Severus, governor of Upper

Pannonia; and in the east, Pescennius Niger, governor of Syria. Severus took Rome, and allied at first with Albinus while he took on Niger in 194 and defeated him. Then he turned his attentions to Albinus, who “invaded Gaul with British troops [in] 196” (Salway 1990: 20). Severus defeated Albinus at Lyons in 197, becoming the victor in the struggle (de la Bédoyère 2006: 61; Salway 1990: 20).

While Albinus was fighting the civil war, new troubles began on Britain‟s northern frontier, caused by the joint forces of the Maeatae and Caledonian tribes. Severus‟ newly appointed governor of Britain, Virius Lupus, “paid the Maeatae a subsidy, buying enough time to repair military installations” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 61-62). This military construction continued till shortly before the arrival of the Severan family in Britain in 208 to embark on a fresh conquest of Scotland. Severus may well have ordered this work to support a campaign long in the planning (ibid., 62-63). Advanced preparations for an extensive campaign can be seen in the large number of imperial seals from the time, which provide evidence of the transportation of large volumes of goods. Also indicative of this planning was the rebuilding of a large coastal fort east of Hadrian‟s Wall, South Shields, “to accommodate an unusually large number of granaries”3

(ibid., 63).

3_{In addition to the four granaries already present at South Shields, twenty new ones were added, “creating a}

(17)

There were reports of more barbarian trouble, possibly true or simply a pretext for the campaign, which may instead have been planned to provide Severus‟ sons with military prestige (de la Bédoyère 2006: 63). Severus, his sons Caracalla and Geta, and the imperial household arrived in Britain in 208, where they would reside in York. Their presence there, and the vast funds brought by Severus, may have stimulated public and elite private building in York at this time, as well as its elevation to the status of colony (ibid., 64).

The campaigns in Scotland continued till 211, with the Romans extending into the north-east, but without victory of a set-piece battle (de la Bédoyère 2006: 64). Severus died at York during the winter of the final campaign, in February 211 (Breeze 1990: 29; de la Bédoyère 2006: 64). He was succeeded by his sons as joint emperors, but they had no interest in continuing the campaign and “abandoned the conquest of Britain” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 64). Hadrian‟s Wall became the frontier once more (Breeze 1990: 29). The First Division of the Provinces

Sometime during the reigns of Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla, the province of Britannia was “divided into two as part of a general policy of reducing the size of the provinces containing armies that were too large for political comfort” (Salway 1990: 20). According to Herodian (3.8.2), the division was made by Severus in 197, right after his defeat of Albinus (Birley 2005: 334). But Birley thinks the indicators are

stronger that the separation was done later, by Caracalla during his own reign (ibid., 333, 335-336).

The southern half of the original province became Britannia Superior, Upper Britain. Its capital was probably at London, and it included the legionary bases of Caerleon and Chester. The northern part was Britannia Inferior, Lower Britain, with its capital and legionary base at York, which was now a colonia (Salway 1990: 20; Birley 2005: 333). It is not known exactly where the boundary between the two provinces was, but Birley (2005: 336) suspects that Lincoln (and thus the east midlands) was in Inferior, and that Chester was located within Superior; the latter probably also included Wales. Third-Century Crisis

The third century, especially its middle decades, was a time for the empire of severe military, political, and economic crises, as well as growing “insecurity” (de la

(18)

Bédoyère 2006: 65; Higham 1992: 43). “There was a partial breakdown of the Principate in the middle of the third century, as a result of disastrous foreign and civil wars, [and] endemic usurpation” (Mattingly 2006: 225). In 238, five different emperors were eliminated over only a few months (Higham 1992: 43). One of the main problems was the growing numbers of barbarian groups pushing on the northern frontiers; their invasions were decimating the economy as well as the towns and countryside of the region; meanwhile, Persian attacks were a concern in the east (ibid.; Mattingly 2006: 226). The frontier warfare seemed to encourage the ambition of the military officers with troops willing to help them challenge the emperor for power (de la Bédoyère 2006: 65). “Military usurpations destroyed any hope of peaceful ascension to the leadership of the empire as rival army commanders and armies fought for control of the central system of patronage” (Higham 1992: 43). From AD 235 to 284, there were not only more than twenty recognized emperors, but more junior co-rulers and usurpers besides (Mattingly 2006: 26). In addition to the military and political issues, there were major economic problems of currency devaluation and price inflation, which added another element to the crises (Higham 1992: 43).

There are no inscriptions or literary evidence that would indicate anything other than that this was a generally peaceful time for Britain, which did not suffer from the barbarian invasions of the north-western part of the continent. “There is no direct

evidence for campaigning in this period” (Birley 2005: 337). However, the monetary and inflation crises undoubtedly had an impact. As well, the problems on the continent appear to have affected the army in Britain. “Under Valerian and Gallienus troops were sent from Britain to reinforce the Rhine and Danube armies at the time of the barbarian invasions and civil wars”; some were “recorded at Sirmium … between 260 and 268” (Birley 2005: 364). It is very likely that these units were never returned to Britain, but were eventually incorporated into the forces on the continent (ibid.).

The Gallic Empire

Marcus Postumus was the general who had charge of the army of the Lower Rhine under the emperor Gallienus. Around 259 or 260, he promoted himself to emperor of the provinces of the north-west (Mattingly 2006: 226; de la Bédoyère 2003: 127; Birley 2005: 337). This is now referred to as the Gallic Empire; it included the provinces

(19)

of Germany, Gaul, Raetia, Spain, and Britain (Mattingly 2006: 226). Postumus realized that he had only regional support, and so he did not try to extend his control beyond this area (de la Bédoyère 2006: 67). “Rather than attacking Gallienus, Postumus effectively created a replica imperial administration and court within a part of the western empire” (Mattingly 2006: 226); he “adopted all the formal trappings of a Roman

emperor, claimed imperial virtues on his coinage, and posed as a restorer of traditional Roman qualities” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 67).

Postumus may have not gained formal control over Britain until 261; it is possible that he visited the island at that time to “secure [its] allegiance” (Birley 2005: 264). Some units within the British garrison adopted the title Postumiana as part of their names, either through loyalty or command. This can be seen from inscriptions of regiments at Lancaster and Birdoswald (de la Bédoyère 2006: 68; Birley 2005: 364). Postumus‟ rule of Britain is also evidenced by the presence of his name on milestones from south-west to north-west England (Birley 2005: 364). Large quantities of the coinage of the Gallic Empire can also be found in Britain (de la Bédoyère 2003: 136).

It is important to note the challenges that must have faced this and future secessionist regimes that had to sustain themselves in Britain and the north-western empire. This area was much less wealthy than Africa, Italy and the east, yet “[t]he large military forces of the north-west now had to be paid for solely by the north-west, not to mention the cost of supporting an imperial administration and an imperial court” (Salway 1993: 199).

Postumus was assassinated in 268 or 269 (de la Bédoyère 2006: 68; Mattingly 2006: 226). His death was followed by a few very brief reigns. Victorinus was in power from 268 to 270. His reign is marked in Britain by six milestones found in eastern to northern England and in south Wales, and the possible incorporation of his name into legionary stamps or tiles at Caerleon and Chester (Birley 2005: 365) But the Gallic Empire was shortly to come apart. Victorinus had to deal with a revolt in Gaul and lost Spain back to the central empire (de la Bédoyère 2003: 130). The last of the Gallic emperors was Tetricus. That Britain was still part of the breakaway empire is indicated by three milestones with his name at Bitterne in southern England and an inscription at Birdoswald on Hadrian‟s Wall in which a regiment incorporated the title Tetriciana (Birley 2005: 365). In 274, however, Aurelian, emperor of the central empire, “marched

(20)

on Tetricus”, who “capitulated without a struggle” (de la Bédoyère 2003: 130; Birley 2005: 365).

Continuing Unrest Under Probus

Though Britain had returned to the empire, continuing instability connected to its provinces or people was still evident in the time of the emperor Probus. Probus had appointed an unnamed individual to be one of the two governors of Britain, on the advice of a certain Victorinus. This governor appears to have revolted sometime around

possibly 279 or 280. At Probus‟ request, Victorinus took charge of putting down the uprising and swiftly dealt with it (Birley 2005: 377, 366). But around 280, Probus had to suppress yet another revolt, not in Britain but on the Rhine, started by Bonosus, a man who was thought to have been born of British parents (de la Bédoyère 2003: 144). The Tetrarchy

Diocletian took power in 284, and soon began developing a new system for governing the empire. It would eventually come to significantly affect the British provinces. The intention of Diocletian in developing the Tetrarchy appears to have been to provide an empire worn down from decades of “political and military turmoil” with some stability (de la Bédoyère 2006: 86; Mattingly 2006: 227).

The key to this new system was “power-sharing”, which would reduce the territory for which one emperor was responsible, and provide a predetermined and straight-forward plan for succession (Mattingly 2006: 227; de la Bédoyère 2006: 68). In 285 Diocletian appointed a co-emperor, Maximian, who would be in charge of the western half of the empire, while he himself ruled the east. They would be the senior emperors or Augusti (de la Bédoyère 2006: 68). Two junior emperors, or Caesars, were added in 293: Constantius Chlorus to help and succeed Maximian in the west, and Gallienus to be Diocletian‟s assistant and successor in the east (ibid.; Birley 2005: 382). Carausius and Allectus

Mausaeus Carausius, from Menapia in Belgium, distinguished himself in Maximian‟s civil war against the Bagaudae, landless brigands in Gaul, in 285 (de la Bédoyère 2006: 68; Mattingly 2006: 230). Because of this, and apparently also due to his earlier experience as a helmsman, according to Aurelius Victor (39.20), in 286 “he had

(21)

received, at Bononia4, the task of pacifying the sea, which the Franks and Saxons were infesting in the Belgica and Armorica sector5” (Eusebius 9.21, in Birley 2005: 371-372).

Carausius did too well and stories were put about, perhaps by Maximian, that Carausius let the raiders through, only setting on them as they staggered home weighed down by loot, which he pocketed for himself. It might have been true, but it is equally likely that Carausius had started to acquire…loyalty … for producing results. No emperor could afford a general with that sort of popularity (de la Bédoyère 2006: 64).

Maximian put out the order for Carausius‟ execution and the latter‟s response was to declare himself emperor and take control of Britain, as well the part of Gaul between the channel and Rouen (Birley 2005: 375). His control of Britain extended to its northern frontier as shown by the inscription bearing his name on a milestone from the Carlisle area (ibid., 337). Maximian had plans to try to invade and retake Britain in 289, but it appears that a storm wrecked his ships and put an end to it (ibid., 379; de la Bédoyère 2006: 71). Carausius remained in power for several years more, but in 293

“…Constantius recaptured Boulogne, causing terminal damage to Carausius‟ prestige” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 71).

Carausius produced very high-quality silver coinage (denarii) as well as radiates (silver-washed bronze) in large quantities (de la Bédoyère 2006: 70).6 Carausius minted some of his coins in Rouen, Gaul, but many were minted in Britain. This is suggested by the mint marks indicating the location of the minting: ML (Moneta Londinii) and C (probably Camulodunum7 but possibly Corinium8) (de la Bédoyère 1999L 34, 36; Birley 2005: 32). Carausius appears to have made use of propaganda, particularly as seen on this coinage, to support his regime. He promoted the concept that he was renewing or re-establishing the Roman Empire within his territory. His approach appears to have been effective, as there is no evidence of “popular opposition” to him, only imperial (de la Bédoyère 2003: 144). Not only did his coins commemorate the legions stationed within

4

Boulogne

5_{North-West Gaul} 6

Such coins have been discovered within a hoard found in April 2010 in Frome, Somerset. Over fifty-two thousand coins from the second half of the third century, primarily base silver radiates, had been buried in a pot. The latest coins, of ca. 290, were found halfway down the pot, so it seems likely that the coins were all buried as a single event. Eight hundred base radiates and five silver denarii of Carausius were among the coins of the hoard, which ended in his reign (Reichenburger 2010; Mausaeus 2010).

7_Colchester 8

(22)

his boundaries to help him keep the support of the army, but many issues used

“phrases, words and images from Virgilian poetry … to portray himself as a messianic figure who would restore Rome‟s golden age” (ibid., 2006: 70). He even created a glorious (though false) lineage from the respected emperors of the second century by calling himself Marcus Aurelius Mausaeus Carausius on the coins (ibid.). Coins issued by Carausius near the end of his reign, in 293, took a different approach by depicting him as, it would seem, a member of the Tetrarchy. In these, he was shown together with Diocletian and Maximian, and the legend Carausius et fratres sui, “Carausius and his brothers”, was included (ibid., 71).

But later in 293, Carausius was murdered, and his deputy Allectus became the new ruler of the breakaway empire. Allectus is generally thought to have been Carausius‟ finance minister (de la Bédoyère 2006: 71), but Birley (2005: 375)

convincingly argues that he is more likely to have been his praetorian prefect9. Little is known of Allectus‟ short reign. Timbers for an unfinished large building on St Peter‟s Hill in London have given a dendrochronological date of 294 for the time of their cutting. It has been speculated that the building might have been ordered by Allectus and intended to be his headquarters or palace, though this remains uncertain (de la Bédoyère 2006: 71; Birley 2005: 387). Coins of Allectus also survive, and show signs of having been minted at the two British mints, but lack the type of propaganda seen in the Carausian issues (Birley 2005: 386).

In 296 the Caesar of the west, Constantius Chlorus, took action to return the breakaway state to the central empire. The rebuilt Roman imperial fleet was separated into two; half left from Boulogne under Constantius‟ command, the other from the Seine River farther south under the leadership of Asclepiodotus, his praetorian prefect.

Asclepiodotus took Allectus and his forces by surprise by landing on Britain‟s south-east coast, as Allectus was only expecting the approach from the east of Constantius.

Asclepiodotus marched north to ambush and defeat the usurper‟s army; the fleeing Allectus was himself killed. Constantius arrived at the east coast and continued along the Thames to triumphantly arrive in London (de la Bédoyère 2006: 71; Birley 2005: 288-299).

9

(23)

Constantius would then have had to re-establish the official imperial

administration and military command in the provinces. This undoubtedly involved a lot of reorganization, as much had changed since the ascension of Diocletian, as will be discussed below. It appears that before leaving Britain, Constantius also went north to campaign against the tribes10, and is thought to have in the process restored fortifications near Hadrian‟s Wall (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 43).

The Shore Forts

Over the course of the third century, a number of fortifications were built along the east and south coasts of England. Rather than an organized programme of building, there appears to have been two main phases of construction, one in the first half of the third century, and the other in the second half, with the construction scattered over the period of the second phase.

The building began “in the early decades of the third century” (Pearson 2002: 65), but this may have been as late as the 230s (de la Bédoyère 2006: 66). Caister-on-Sea, on the east coast in the Norfolk area, and Reculver in the south-east coast in Kent, were definitely constructed at this time; while the fort at Brancaster, also on the Norfolk coast, may have also have been (Pearson 2002: 65; 2005: 75; de la Bédoyère 2006: 66). “These forts may have been intended to operate in conjunction with other defended sites on the east coast of Britain”, such as the installations in the north-east, Brough-on-Humber and South Shields, which had been significantly renovated for the Severan campaigns at (Pearson 2006: 65).

The construction of the second phase of forts appears to have stretched between

ca. 260 and 300. “New military installations were built in East Anglia and Kent,

augmenting those forts constructed in the earlier parts of the century” (Pearson 2002: 56; 2005: 75). Going around the coast from east to south to west these included Burgh Castle, Walton Castle, and Bradwell on the east coast, Richborough and Dover in the south-east, and Lympne, Pevensey, and Portchester on the south coast (ibid., 2002: 56). Some of the forts cannot be dated closer than post-260, such as Walton Castle. Lympne may have been built and used in the 260s, but probably not until the 270s. Portchester

10_{Although there had been no reference to problems with them through most of the third century up to this}

(24)

may also have been constructed during the time of the Gallic Empire, or soon after, as may Bradwell. Evidence suggests that the forts at Richborough and Dover belong to the mid to late 270s. It is not clear when Burgh Castle was constructed, but surface finds indicate use of the site in the later third century. The fort at Pevensey may have been the last one to be constructed. It was originally believed to have been constructed in the 330s, due to the discovery of one coin of Constantine from 330-335. More recent

excavations providing dendrochronological evidence and coins of Carausius and Allectus give the fort a date in the mid to late 290s (ibid., 57-60).

Most of the third-century forts11 are listed in the Notitia Dignitatum12 as under the command of the comes litoris Saxonici, the count of the Saxon Shore, of the late 390s and/or early fifth century (Pearson 2002: 129). This has, in the past, led to the

assumption that the forts were built to protect the coasts of Britain from raiders and pirates, particularly of Saxon origin, approaching from the east and southeast. The concept that piracy was a problem in third-century Britain can still be found in very recent books on Roman Britain13. However, there is little evidence to support this belief. Literary sources point to the Germanic raiding in northern Gaul late in the century that led to the establishment of Carausius‟ anti-piracy command, but they only specify attacks on Belgica and Armorica14. There are no references that specify coastal raiding in Britain (Pearson 2005: 77-78; Cotterill 1993: 229). Even the tribes of northern Britain

apparently presented little problem between the time of the Severans and Constantius Chlorus. There is a lack of epigraphic or literary evidence to indicate otherwise. “The impression given is that Britain was relatively protected in this period, spared from the barbarian invasions” (Birley 2005: 237).

It would seem, then, that the shore forts were probably constructed for purposes other than primarily fending off coastal piracy. They may have been intended as fortified ports that would be part of the imperial supply system (Pearson 2005: 137-138; 2005: 82, 85; Cotterill 1993: 837). By the time of the Notitia at the end of the fourth century or

11_{The identification of some of the Latin names with the actual fort sites has been problematic (Pearson 2002:}

130).

12_{This is a document, compiled in the very late fourth century and updated ca. 425, which lists imperial}

civilian and military positions (Merrifield 1983: 239).

13_{See de la Bédoyère 2006: 66.} 14

(25)

early in the fifth, and the establishment of the command of the count of the Saxon Shore, raiding and piracy had no doubt become a bigger problem, and one clearly associated with Saxons, though there is still minimal evidence for this prior to the early fifth century. By that time, however, several of the shore forts had been allowed to go out of use15 or were undergoing a very disordered occupation16 (Pearson 2002: 167-168), which would suggest that the Saxon/coastal raiding issue was not being regarded as a serious problem.

The Elevation of Constantine “the Great”

In May 305, Constantius became Augustus, the senior emperor of the west, and returned to Britain for a new expedition against the tribes of the north. His son

Constantine joined him, and would take part in his campaign against the tribes now known as the Picts (Birley 2005: 406). The Roman forces appear to have reached northern Scotland but “without achieving resounding success against elusive enemies”, and the ailing Constantius died in July 306 at York (Mattingly 2006: 233-234).

Though Constantine was not the Caesar of the west and should not have been Constantius‟ successor, according to the rule of the Tetrarchy system, nevertheless his father‟s troops, who had no doubt developed loyalty to him and bonded with him on the Scottish campaign, declared him the new Augustus. “The presence of Constantine in Britain was no accident” (Mattingly 2006: 233). A series of wars throughout the empire followed, in which Constantine, Augusti, Caesars, and would-be candidates for these positions, as well as other usurpers, fought for control of the empire (ibid.; de la

Bédoyère 2006: 73). From this struggle, “…Constantine emerged in 324 as the supreme victor” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 73). Unlike the past usurpers to imperial power who had arisen out of Britain or with support of Britain‟s troops, and unlike the many more still to come, Constantine alone completely succeeded in his quest, retaining his power, as sole ruler, until his natural death in 337. At that time his three sons, Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II, divided the empire amongst them (ibid.).

Constantine retained connections with Britain, at least in the early years: he may have made a few return trips to Britain. It has been suggested that there was one as early

15_{Lympne, Reculver, Burgh Castle, and Caister.} 16

(26)

as 307, based on a coin issued by the mint in London (Birley 2005: 411; Mattingly 2006: 234). However, the coin “is a single specimen of dubious authenticity” (Birley 2005: 411). A more likely visit may have occurred ca. 310-312, based on the minting of

adventus coin issues of about this date in London. P. J. Casey connects these coins to

references in Eusebius (De Vita Constantini 1.8.2; 1.25.2; 4.50) to one or possibly more visits by Constantine to the island (Birley 2005: 411). This visit may have been at least partly to pick up additional troops from Britain for his fight for control of the west against Maximian‟s son Maxentius. These troops are noted by the historian Zosimus at 2.15.1 (Mattingly 2006: 231; Birley 2005: 411). “Casey argues further that London adventus issues of 311-14 and 314-15 commemorate another visit between April and October 314, as a result of which Constantine assumed the title Britannicus Maximus, attested in 315” (Birley 2005: 411). This suggests an expedition with a victorious outcome, and Eusebius (1.8.2) does suggest that Constantine campaigned in Britain. However, it is unknown who he fought, Picts, usurpers, or someone else (Mattingly 2006: 234).

The Rise of Christianity in the Early Fourth Century

One of the most notable changes of the fourth century was “the progressive rise of Christianity” (Mattingly 2006: 228). By the later third century, a number of emperors had realized there would be advantages for governing the empire if there were a state religion. There was an attempt to use the Sun-God, for example, in this role, prior to it being filled by Christianity (Higham 1992: 47).

Christianity was heavily persecuted by the state during the time of the Tetrarchs, until Galerius gave it official recognition in the 311 Edict of Toleration (Mattingly 2006: 228). Constantine showed interest in Christianity, particularly after it was thought to have aided his victory at the Milvian Bridge in 312 (Higham 1992: 47). He legitimized it in 313 with the Edict of Milan. “Constantine recognized that Christianity offered him a tool with which he could recruit men who owed their elevation and power to him, rather than relying on older, established families” (de la Bédoyère 2006: 73).

As this proved to be a successful approach for him, Constantine continued to give increasing support to Christianity, funding the building of churches on a large scale, attending its councils, and making it almost into a state religion, a position it would achieve later in the fourth century (Higham 1992: 47). Christianity had not been an

(27)

important religion in the north-western provinces in the third century. After its

promotion by Constantine, however, it “spread through the governing classes, within the patronage system, along trade routes and among urban communities” (ibid.). Evidence of the existence of church organization in Britain, and of bishops at most of its provincial capitals very soon after the Edict of Milan, can be seen in the presence at the 314 Council of Arles of bishops representing London, York, and very possibly Lincoln (de la

Bédoyère 2006: 73).

Reorganization of the Administration and Military in the British Provinces The return of Britain to the central empire in 296 was soon followed by the beginning of changes to the government and military systems that would continue through the reign of Constantine (Salway 1990: 20). Provinces outside of the area controlled by Carausius and Allectus had already been divided into a larger number of smaller provinces in 293; it is likely that the further division of Britain‟s two provinces into four was carried out soon after the island had been retaken (Birley 2005: 405-406).

Britannia Superior probably became Maxima Caesariensis with its capital at London, and Britannia Prima, run from Cirencester; while Inferior likely was split into a southern half of Flavia Caesariensis, administered out of Lincoln, and Britannia Secunda in the north with a capital at York (Salway 1990: 21; Mattingly 2006: 228). These

provinces were in existence by the time of the compiling of the Laterculus Veronensis (the Verona List) ca. 303-314, in which they were named (Birley 2005: 397).

The provinces of the empire would be grouped together into twelve dioceses, each controlled by a vicarius, who was a high level civil administrative official. Britain‟s provinces by 312 made up the diocese of the Britains, under the government of the

Vicarius Britanniarum. This element of the reforms was probably carried out during the

reign of Constantine (Salway 1990: 21; Mattingly 2006: 227). “The vicarius reported to a praetorian prefect17, whose headquarters was at Trier … and who was responsible for the vicarii of all the dioceses of the north-western part of the empire” (Salway 1990: 20).

17

Constantine had the Praetorian Guard dismantled in 312, and the prefects then became “civilian officials, chief regional deputies of emperors with major financial functions” (Salway 1990: 21). The empire had four prefectures (ibid.).

(28)

Most of the governors of these new provinces would be praesides18, of equestrian rank, though later governors in Maxima Caesariensis would have the senatorial rank of consularis19, as indicated in the Notitia Dignitatum (Occ. 23. 9-10; Birley 2005: 397-398; Frere 1987: 199). A major distinction between these and previous provincial governors was that they would no longer have command of the forces located within their province, as these would now be under separate military control. These changes made by Diocletian in province size and command were “aimed fundamentally at restoring the stability of the state” by reducing the potential for revolt (Mattingly 2006: 227-228; Salway 1990: 20). Provincial governors were now responsible for finance, especially tax collection, judicial matters, and other administrative duties such as road maintenance (Birley 2005: 404). The procurators of the early empire20 were gone but part of their responsibilities were taken on now by the governors (Salway 1990: 20).

There were additional officials concerned with finances and other imperial matters operating on the diocesan level, according to the Notitia Dignitatum. Three of these were subordinate to the finance minister for the empire, the comes sacrarum

largitionum, whose department was responsible for “the raising of revenues and their

disbursement”, state servants‟ salaries, and “the minting of gold and silver coin”

(Esmonde Cleary 1989: 10-11; Birley 2005: 404). These diocesan officials included the

rationalis summarum Britanniarum, “accountant of the chief accounts of the Britains”

(ND, Occ. 11.3.20), who was the head of finance for the diocese and concerned with tax collections; the praepositus thesaurorum Augustensium, the man “in charge of the treasures of Augusta21” (ND, Occ. 11.37), the head of the treasury (thesaurus); and the

procurator gynaecii in Britanniis Ventensis, “procurator of the women‟s

(weaving-factory) of Venta in the Britains” (ND, Occ. 11.60), director of a state factory making clothing, likely uniforms (Birley 2005: 404; Esmonde Cleary 1989: 10, 48). A fourth senior official at the diocesan level reported to a different imperial financial minister, the

comes rerum privatarum, who was concerned with imperial properties: the rationalis rei privatae per Britannias, “accountant of the private account in the Britains” (ND, Occ.

18_{Singular, praeses}

19

Plural, consulares

20_{A procurator was the chief provincial financial officer, responsible directly to the emperor.} 21

(29)

17.3.15), who oversaw the imperial estates and other properties owned by the emperor within Britain (Birley 2005: 404; Esmonde Cleary 1989: 48).

The Roman army had also been reorganized on a large scale. As noted above, military commands had been made separate from civilian posts by Diocletian. Army units would now be led within the provinces by duces and comites. He also significantly expanded the number of legions and the overall size of the army (Breeze 1990: 30). As well, he created a “professional officer corps” (Salway 1990: 21). As with the

administrative reorganization, the purpose behind these changes was to “stabilize and preserve [the] empire” (ibid.). The reorganization was finished by Constantine, during whose reign the army reached the form in which it is known for the fourth century (Breeze 1990: 30).

The roots of the changes were in the mid third century, with Gallienus‟ emphasis on smaller mobile units. “The mobile force of the first and second centuries had

fossilized into frontier garrisons in the third century. In the fourth century, mobility was restored by the creating of field armies”, inspired by Gallienus‟ approach (Breeze 1990: 30). The new elite mobile units were called comitatenses, and were billeted in towns along main roads of the empire rather than based at particular forts (Higham 1992: 44). They were led by comites22 (“counts”) and travelled with the emperor to the location where the crisis was occurring (Breeze 1990: 30; Mattingly 2006: 228). The troops that remained stationed at forts in the frontier areas23 were now called limitanei (Salway 1993: 241). They were commanded by duces (“dukes”, or leaders) (ibid., 1990: 21), and were considered a lower grade of troops than the field armies (Breeze 1990: 30). They received lower status, pay, conditions, and assignments than the elite comitatenses (Mattingly 2006: 228; Salway 1993: 241). The comites and duces were themselves answerable to the magister equitum and magister peditum, who were the commanders of the cavalry and infantry but could be combined into a single position as the top military official, the magister militum (Mattingly 2006: 228; Esmonde Cleary 1989: 5).

The evidence for military commanders and types of units in fourth-century Roman Britain is primarily from late in the century and from two literary sources:

22

The name for the commanders (comites) and thus the troops had the original meaning of “companions” of the emperor (Salway 1993: 241).

23

(30)

Ammianus Marcellinus‟ account of the 367 barbarian conspiracy, and the Notitia

Dignitatum, which probably reflects the situation in ca. 395 or a few years later.

Ammianus‟ reference to Fullofaudes in 367 (27.8.1) is the earliest notice of a dux in Britain, though it is thought likely that a dux would have been leading the British frontier armies from some time during Constantine‟s reign (Birley 2005: 401). In the Notitia the position is listed as dux Britanniarum, “of the Britains” (Occ. 40), indicating that his forces were located in more than one province (ibid.). As well as commanding the forces in northern England in the area of Hadrian‟s Wall, the dux may have been in charge of some of those remaining in Wales, which was still largely under military control.

Ammianus (27.8.1) also provides the earliest reference to a comes for Britain, the

comes maritimi tractus, commander “of the coastal area” (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 45;

Birley 2005: 402). This may be equivalent to the comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias, commander of the Saxon shore, listed in the Notitia Dignitatum (Occ. 5.131) but it is not certain that the two were the same , or that the second post existed before the end out the century (Birley 2005: 402). If they were the same, or at least similar, it would appear from the Notitia that this comes commanded limitanei rather than comitatenses, probably stationed at the forts located along Britain‟s shores, particularly the eastern and southern coasts. The use of the plural Britannias suggests these were spread through more than one province; it is possible that the comes may have commanded troops stationed on the shores of the Gallic side of the channel as well (ibid.; Esmonde Cleary 1989: 50).

It appears very likely that there was no field army posted in Britain until close to the end of the century, and that it was necessary till then to send in units of the Gallic field army when there were crises (Breeze 1990: 30). In the last few years of the fourth century, Britain seems to have acquired a small field army, as one comitatenses command is indicated in the Notitia (Occ. 6.153, 199), that of the comes Britanniarum (ibid.,

Esmonde Cleary 1989: 50; Birley 2005: 403). It is possible, as claimed by J.C. Mann, that the command was created by Stilicho, „“who began the practice of creating

permanent field-armies, too small to qualify for the appointment of a magister” ‟ (quoted in Birley 2005: 403). Though again the troops must have been spread between multiple provinces, it is completely unknown where they would have been stationed, though this would normally have been in cities and towns (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 54).

(31)

Taxation and Military Supply

The administrative towns in Britain were key centres for tax collection. Due to the instability of the Roman Empire‟s currency in the mid to late third century, taxes began to be collected in kind by local agents to ensure that needed military and official supplies could be met and the military and bureaucracy paid (Hopkins 1980: 123). “The need to secure such resources may have been a particular concern to the separatist regimes in Britain during the late third century, with sources of income and supply from elsewhere in the Empire being severely restricted” (Pearson 2005: 84). Diocletian in the very late third and early fourth centuries, and Constantine I in the early fourth, “institutionalized … the predominance of taxation in kind” in the Empire (Hopkins 1980: 123). The large administrative towns of Roman Britain probably became important nodes in the system for collecting, storing, and distributing these supplies, and also, in some cases, for processing them before they were sent on through the system. Aspects of the towns may have been remodelled and transformed in the late third and fourth centuries to maximize these activities.

Taxes were much higher in the late empire because the government‟s needs were much greater, and because, due to the end of the territorial expansion and profits derived from conquest, taxes provided the primary income for the state (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 8; de la Bédoyère 2006: 95). The majority of state expenditure came in the form of the payment and provisioning of state employees, primarily the military and the bureaucracy, both now significantly expanded (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 8-9; de la Bédoyère 2006: 95; Salway 1993: 240). State servants were paid an annual salary or stipendia in base-metal coin, though the third-century inflation had removed most of its value. So in addition to this, the military also received the donativa, or donatives, paid in gold and silver on an emperor‟s accession, five-year anniversaries of that event, and other special occasions. State employees further received yearly rations of food (annona) and fodder (capitis), which were acquired by the state through tax in kind (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 10).

Diocletian introduced a new form of tax-assessment that more thoroughly determined the amount of workable land and of people, yet could be varied according to what the state needed. Censuses and surveys were carried out throughout the empire (Potter and Johns 1992; 191; de la Bédoyère 1999: 58). The land was divided into

(32)

agricultural production called iuga. The better the land, the more iuga it was worth. The population was assessed on a head-count called capitatio” (de la Bédoyère 1999: 58). The state would determine what its needs were, and what the current tax rate to be paid “per head and per agricultural productivity unit” would be (ibid., 2006: 100). This amount could be increased, and over the course of the fourth century, it was (ibid.; Faulkner 2000: 43). Based on these assessments, there were two main types of tax to be paid. The iugum was the property or land tax, paid in kind, while the capitatio, the poll tax, was usually paid in coin, though in some regions that were less integrated into the money economy, it may have been also paid in kind (Potter and Johns 1992: 191;

Esmonde Cleary 1989: 8). Tax in coin seems to have become more important again later in the fourth century: “there was a tendency for payments in kind increasingly to be … paid in coin at a set rate of correspondence with produce in kind” (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 10).

The most senior imperial officials responsible for the acquisition of state revenue through taxation and for its distribution to state employees were the comes sacrarum

largitionum and the praetorian prefect. The comes sacrarum largitionum was concerned

with the collection of tax, particularly in coin, and with payment in coin, which extended to the minting of money in gold and silver. His representatives at the diocesan level were the praepositus, who ensured that the taxes were collected and the rationalis, who

received the taxes from the office of the praepositus; they also ensured that state

payments were made to state employees in the diocese. At the provincial level, much of the governor‟s responsibilities now surrounded taxation, while in the civitates this was carried out by appointed town councillors (decurions) (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 10, 48; de la Bédoyère 1999: 57; 2006: 100). From about AD 312, the praetorian prefect was responsible for tax and payment in kind and the minting of bronze coins (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 10).

For taxes in coin, the farmer or landowner would bring produce into the

administrative town of his civitas to convert into coin. This could be done through the sale to merchants who purchased in bulk, or sale to the state, which purchased produce on top of what it received in kind. Bronze coins received in payments, or accumulated in small daily transactions, would be taken to money-changers or nummularii. For a profit, they would exchange bronze for gold or silver for the payment of tax in coin, and could

(33)

change gold and silver, such as was received by soldiers as payment, for bronze to be used in the markets (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 11, 73-74; Faulkner 2000: 62; de la Bédoyère 1999: 57). “Indirectly … the state‟s fiscal and monetary cycle generated a vast number of transactions in the towns” (Faulkner 2000: 62).

Tax in kind had to be delivered to where it was needed by the military or bureaucracy. This would require the transport of significant quantities of commodities over great distances. The distribution of payment in kind was the responsibility of the office of the praetorian prefect. On the provincial level, its transportation was carried out under the direction of the primus pilus, “originally the senior centurion of a legion, but now a provincial official responsible to the praetorian prefect” (Esmonde Cleary 1989: 12). There is evidence that the trade of luxury goods intended “for resale at a profit”, such as fine-ware pottery, glass, and metal-work, became attached to the official transport of such goods, and were moved to different centres along with them, further stimulating the economy (ibid.).

As noted above, it is possible that the system of shore forts was not intended solely or even primarily for defensive purposes: they may instead have been organized for the maximum extraction of resources, such as those acquired through taxation, and the transport of these into the imperial supply system. The concept that they were “part of a chain of fortified ports” (Pearson 2005: 82), working with other fortified sites and tax collection centres to transport and distribute supplies for the imperial system, was

originally proposed by G. Milne in 1990 (Cotterill 1993: 237), and expanded by Cotterill (1993) and Pearson (2002; 2005). Taxes in kind, products derived from them, and other necessary raw materials and goods which may have been collected in the administrative centres could have been transferred to fortified sites with access to water transport such as the shore forts, and then sent off to army strongholds in Britain, or to the continent for use in Gaul or Germany (Pearson 2002: 137-138; 2005: 82).

Constans’ Winter Visit to Britain

After the death of Constantine I in AD 337, his sons became rulers of the empire: Constantine II in Britain, Gaul, and Spain; Constans in Italy, Africa, and Illyria; and Constantius II in the east. Nothing is known about Britain during the years it was under Constantine II‟s control. But in 340, Constans became emperor of all the west, after